Write to Read in Two Different Practices: Literacy versus Technology in Focus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literacy acquisition by using computers and computer tablets is rapidly gaining ground in Swedish classrooms.This article explores the hypothesis that computer-writing vitalizes the learning of literacy, in comparison withapproaches using books and pencils. The results of two separate studies in two different settings whereprewriting and writing were used to enhance literacy development will be described and discussed. The results ofa recent study of classrooms where computers were used will be compared with an older study where studentsused pencils and paper for writing. The results indicated that the nature of the literacy practice was stronglylinked to the teacher’s conceptions of literacy and learning. The teachers’ choices of computers or pencils astools for writing do, however, not seem to influence the processes of writing in the classrooms. How writing wasenacted in the classrooms and the potential to further development of the literacy practices, were linked toteacher knowledge and the teacher’s conception of literacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it